DC Tom Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I read links in here 3rd. What I'm saying is what specifically has you so riled up that is the worst cover-up/scandal in history? Because people died. That's pretty much it. People died. Never mind that C2 through multiple levels and branches of bureaucracy is routinely !@#$ed up at best. Never mind that reading all the links in this thread leads one to the inescapable conclusion that everything that transpired through six hours happened all at once (or things that happened at the same time were six hours apart). Someone died, so someone else must be criminally malfeasant. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 You are completely out of your mind. Completely gone. Way worse than any Bush conspirator. There's no conspiracy, Skippy. It's a simple as this: Americans WILL understand if you send in troops to rescue our own. The WH chose NOT to rescue them, and then spent two weeks lying about what actually happened so they wouldn't upset people who want us dead anyway. I don't expect you to agree with me on this because you clearly fall into the camp of this story being "a joke" and their deaths being "a bump in the road" and "not optimal." We just see it differently. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 There's no conspiracy, Skippy. It's a simple as this: Americans WILL understand if you send in troops to rescue our own. The WH chose NOT to rescue them, and then spent two weeks lying about what actually happened so they wouldn't upset people who want us dead anyway. I don't expect you to agree with me on this because you clearly fall into the camp of this story being "a joke" and their deaths being "a bump in the road" and "not optimal." We just see it differently. That is all. They just "chose not to rescue them" that's the takeaway you get from this story? Basically Obama was sitting there and said..."nah, don't worry about it." That's certainly an interesting takeaway. We probably won't see this the same you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Because people died. That's pretty much it. People died. Never mind that C2 through multiple levels and branches of bureaucracy is routinely !@#$ed up at best. Never mind that reading all the links in this thread leads one to the inescapable conclusion that everything that transpired through six hours happened all at once (or things that happened at the same time were six hours apart). Someone died, so someone else must be criminally malfeasant. . Not just people died, people died needlessly as live video was being watched by those who could put a stop to it and chose to do nothing. Calls for aid went unheeded. Those who chose to help did so by disobeying orders and were left to be killed. That's what my outrage is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 They just "chose not to rescue them" that's the takeaway you get from this story? Basically Obama was sitting there and said..."nah, don't worry about it." That's certainly an interesting takeaway. We probably won't see this the same you are correct. No one said Obama was sitting there saying "nah, don't worry about it," (though I understand how liberals are always taking things to the extreme for the sake of maintaining a whiny persona) but its been repeatedly reported that they were watching this happen in real time. It's been reported that they specifically chose not to send in help regardless of three requests. And it was reported that the four men died because they didn't get help. Not sure why you consider it just a joke or bump in the road, but I won't apologize for what I take away from this story. But you know the ultimate insult for me? The trip to Vegas. That was the stinker. That single move tells you everything you need to know about the character of Barack Obama, and the state of the MSM in America. Four Americans murdered in a terror plot, and it's off to Vegas to score some cash and no one in the media blinks an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Pics of the Situation Room during the Benghazi attack have been leaked to the Intartubes As I post this, one of those I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message commercials just came on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The CIA is on record as saying "nobody in OUR group told anybody to stand down". And, they are on record as having the assets to do something. Who does that leave? Panetta, Obama, Clinton. One or more told them to stand down. This will not end, until it comes out who told them to stand down and why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 All this for a simple case of workplace violence? Yes Moochelle my sweet. I have to put up with a lot as POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It Wasn’t Just Four Americans Abandoned in Benghazi Up to 32 Americans were denied military assistance at the consulate and CIA safe house. The few media that are covering the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi have focused — and not without merit — on the four Americans that perished over the course of the seven-hour battle. Ambassador Chris Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith were not the only Americans in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, however, a fact some of us have lost sight of in our focus on the dead. Nor were Glen Doherty and Ty Woods the only casualties among the forces that disobeyed orders from the Obama administration not to rescue the consulate staff. When terrorists surrounded the consulate at approximately 8:00 p.m. Benghazi time with 150 men and “technicals” — pickup trucks with heavy machine guns, bearing the logo of Ansar al-Shariah — Stevens and Smith were part of a larger American delegation numbering somewhere between 7-24. We’re forced to say “approximately” because it has been difficult to determine through media accounts the exact number of Americans inside the consulate. We do know that at least three other consulate staff members were seriously injured enough in the initial attack that they were treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Two more consulate staff members were apparently injured in the attack on the CIA safe house which also killed Glen Doherty and Ty Woods. What we can be sure of is that as the consulate was under fire from a large terrorist force, the lives of a minimum of seven American diplomats were put at risk as President Barack Obama allegedly watched the attack live in the White House Situation Room via the satellite video link to an unarmed Predator drone circling overhead. We now know that the small CIA force on a separate mission, occupying a safe house a mile away, called in to their superiors for reinforcements. We know that this force twice asked for permission to attempt a rescue mission. We know that they were twice told to “stand down.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 They just "chose not to rescue them" that's the takeaway you get from this story? Basically Obama was sitting there and said..."nah, don't worry about it." That's certainly an interesting takeaway. We probably won't see this the same you are correct. Quit being so !@#$ing obtuse. Obama came out and said that he told DOD to do everything they could to protect them. He was either lying about that or someone lower on the food chain was derelict. The deliberate misleading of everyone about the nature of the attacks can be nothing but a coverup. Aren't you the least bit curious as to why they would want to cover this up? Furthermore, did I say this was the worst scandal/coverup in history like you claimed? No, I said it appeared worse than Iran-Contra and Watergate. Why do you think hyperbole will help you out, when all it does is bring you closer to "Ducky" status? Your comment to me up above says that you read the links that were posted throughout this thread. You are either bullschitting or the least inquisitive person possible. Because people died. That's pretty much it. People died. Never mind that C2 through multiple levels and branches of bureaucracy is routinely !@#$ed up at best. Never mind that reading all the links in this thread leads one to the inescapable conclusion that everything that transpired through six hours happened all at once (or things that happened at the same time were six hours apart). Someone died, so someone else must be criminally malfeasant. . You've been debating too much with DiN and it's rubbing off. You are being nonsensical and actually arguing against some of your prior posts. Above the fray, sniping at retards from the balcony, eh? Or is it just taking on your "Mean Adam" personna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Quit being so !@#$ing obtuse. Obama came out and said that he told DOD to do everything they could to protect them. He was either lying about that or someone lower on the food chain was derelict. The deliberate misleading of everyone about the nature of the attacks can be nothing but a coverup. Aren't you the least bit curious as to why they would want to cover this up? Furthermore, did I say this was the worst scandal/coverup in history like you claimed? No, I said it appeared worse than Iran-Contra and Watergate. Why do you think hyperbole will help you out, when all it does is bring you closer to "Ducky" status? Your comment to me up above says that you read the links that were posted throughout this thread. You are either bullschitting or the least inquisitive person possible. This is the inconsistency. Either Obama's orders weren't followed, in which case courts martial are in order, or, he never gave them, or, he wasn't as emphatic and specific as he has claimed. Obama saying "I ordered them to do 'everything possible'" falls into the third category, and, also approaches danger close to "Misbehavior in the face of the enemy" standards. The CIA has already covered it's ass, and I guarantee they can back that up. They are essentially saying: we never received an op order. They may have received a warning order, but not an op order. This leaves Obama and Panetta, and to a lesser extent Clinton, because the SOS doesn't issue military orders, and, the CIA handles paramilitary stuff. You've been debating too much with DiN and it's rubbing off. You are being nonsensical and actually arguing against some of your prior posts. Above the fray, sniping at retards from the balcony, eh? Or is it just taking on your "Mean Adam" personna? Normally, I wouldn't defend Tom. Normally, I'd rather see him go after you, and you go after him. However in this case: both of us know about the DOD, and how things go there. Sometimes things just go south. Fog of war is real. However: 6 hours of real time intel, including eyes on the ground, providing sitreps and calling for support, stretches fog...and makes it...mist? The mist of war? Also, "Fog of War" may not be the refuge/defense that Panetta thinks it is: when historians look at Fog of War situations, most often they conclude that a preconceived notion, or the decision maker saying "I KNOW this is what is happening, and I CHOOSE to disregard this other stuff because it doesn't matter"... when it really isn't, and it really does...is at fault. I wonder...when the history of this is written, which preconceived notion, and which decision maker, will be fault? Hmm...what a puzzle. I bet the Ds on this board are completely mystified about it, and will never be able to understand it...because it's so foggy. Nah, the Democratic Convention will never provide us any answers about any preconceived notions, or any action taken to try and preserve them, might as well not look there. Edited October 31, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This is the inconsistency. Either Obama's orders weren't followed, in which case courts martial are in order, or, he never gave them, or, he wasn't as emphatic and specific as he has claimed. Obama saying "I ordered them to do 'everything possible'" falls into the third category, and, also approaches danger close to "Misbehavior in the face of the enemy" standards. The CIA has already covered it's ass, and I guarantee they can back that up. They are essentially saying: we never received an op order. They may have received a warning order, but not an op order. This leaves Obama and Panetta, and to a lesser extent Clinton, because the SOS doesn't issue military orders, and, the CIA handles paramilitary stuff. Normally, I wouldn't defend Tom. Normally, I'd rather see him go after you, and you go after him. However in this case: both of us know about the DOD, and how things go there. Sometimes things just go south. Fog of war is real. However: 6 hours of real time intel, including eyes on the ground, providing sitreps and calling for support, stretches fog...and makes it...mist? The mist of war? Also, "Fog of War" may not be the refuge/defense that Panetta thinks it is: when historians look at Fog of War situations, most often they conclude that a preconceived notion, or the decision maker saying "I KNOW this is what is happening, and I CHOOSE to disregard this other stuff because it doesn't matter"... when it really isn't, and it really does...is at fault. I wonder...when the history of this is written, which preconceived notion, and which decision maker, will be fault? Hmm...what a puzzle. I bet the Ds on this board are completely mystified about it, and will never be able to understand it...because it's so foggy. Nah, the Democratic Convention will never provide us any answers about any preconceived notions, or any action taken to try and preserve them, might as well not look there. My problem with Tom's post is that he poorly critiquing my post where I explained to TheNewBills what had gone on. Tom made a nonsensical critique when it came to timelines. In his opinion I either explained what went on over a 6 hr period as if it happened all at once or explained what happened all at once and made it look like it was over 6 hours. His previous posts in this thread had shown me that he knew what was going on and he was as incensed about the Benghazi !@#$up as I and others on this board. He was just playing his Grand Torino impression but doing it from his lofty perch that he calls a balcony but is really just a high horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) My problem with Tom's post is that he poorly critiquing my post where I explained to TheNewBills what had gone on. Tom made a nonsensical critique when it came to timelines. In his opinion I either explained what went on over a 6 hr period as if it happened all at once or explained what happened all at once and made it look like it was over 6 hours. His previous posts in this thread had shown me that he knew what was going on and he was as incensed about the Benghazi !@#$up as I and others on this board. He was just playing his Grand Torino impression but doing it from his lofty perch that he calls a balcony but is really just a high horse. Yeah...but who cares about Tom? Or his Grand Torino, or his horse? His wife won't let him have the car, and he's likely to fall off the horse. Why not let him have his balcony? Can't the man have something? I'd rather have you laugh at the fact that Panetta, by using the Fog of War excuse, will most likely condemn both him and Obama to "military blunderer" status on the History Channel, forever..... Think about it: 60 years from now, some other guy, who doesn't get to have the car either, is going to flip on his TV, watch that show, and chuckle..."that Obama...what an idiot. Why didn't he pay attention the intelligence from the spring, it was right in front of his face?" He's going to take comfort in that, and that's going to make not having the car...not so bad. Doesn't that make you ? Edited November 1, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 My problem with Tom's post is that he poorly critiquing my post where I explained to TheNewBills what had gone on. Tom made a nonsensical critique when it came to timelines. In his opinion I either explained what went on over a 6 hr period as if it happened all at once or explained what happened all at once and made it look like it was over 6 hours. The implication being that I've been paying any attention to you whatsoever. I've been reading the links in this thread. They're pretty much all over the place with the story. I don't even bother reading any of your crap given those are your sources. And really, this is getting to a Bush/Goat Story level of ridiculousness now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yeah...but who cares about Tom? Or his Grand Torino, or his horse? His wife won't let him have the car, and he's likely to fall off the horse. Why not let him have his balcony? Can't the man have something? I'd rather have you laugh at the fact that Panetta, by using the Fog of War excuse, will most likely condemn both him and Obama to "military blunderer" status on the History Channel, forever..... Think about it: 60 years from now, some other guy, who doesn't get to have the car either, is going to flip on his TV, watch that show, and chuckle..."that Obama...what an idiot. Why didn't he pay attention the intelligence from the spring, it was right in front of his face?" He's going to take comfort in that, and that's going to make not having the car...not so bad. Doesn't that make you ? Sure it makes me smile. But for some odd reason, when Tom makes a foolish statement, it's fun to take him to task. He so mercilessly beats up on the woman and children here that it's fun to bust his ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Sure it makes me smile. But for some odd reason, when Tom makes a foolish statement, it's fun to take him to task. He so mercilessly beats up on the woman and children here that it's fun to bust his ball. You taking me to task for anything I say is a solid contra-indicator of the foolishness of any of my statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Pics of the Situation Room during the Benghazi attack have been leaked to the Intartubes As I post this, one of those I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message commercials just came on TV No Buffalo Wings??? Ok, go Romney!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The implication being that I've been paying any attention to you whatsoever. I've been reading the links in this thread. They're pretty much all over the place with the story. I don't even bother reading any of your crap given those are your sources. And really, this is getting to a Bush/Goat Story level of ridiculousness now. The links and the additional reading I've done on this are not "all over the board". There are some inconsistancies, and in my explanation to TNB I took only what was consistant from several sources and also made sense to me. I could have brought up the Al Quada gun connection with the weapons but chose not to. So, in as nice of a way that I can say it, quit being an arrogant prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The links and the additional reading I've done on this are not "all over the board". There are some inconsistancies, and in my explanation to TNB I took only what was consistant from several sources and also made sense to me. I could have brought up the Al Quada gun connection with the weapons but chose not to. So, in as nice of a way that I can say it, quit being an arrogant prick. No, they're all over the board. They were so contradictory the only realistic conclusion a sane person could reach was that no one had any idea what happened, which made all of those largely worthless to read. Plus...your answers are only as good as the questions you ask. And you don't ask any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 You taking me to task for anything I say is a solid contra-indicator of the foolishness of any of my statements. He did. Again. You actually suck at this. If this is your schtick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts